bac5665 wrote:I think Kip was trying to get things going. And it seamed to work. This team has hit terribly and Kip tried a different approach.

He couldn't know Cabrerra was going to hit a double.

Right, Cabrera doubled because Kipnis successfully sacrificed. Because Kipnis "got things going". It wasn't Bourn's bunt single or Swisher's walk that got things going. It was the first out of the inning.

Bunting in the first inning is stupid. Giving up outs is generally stupid.

A bunt in that situation lowered your expected runs for that inning. Luckily, Cabrera doubled, because your best hitter didn't even give himself the chance to hit.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

bac5665 wrote:I think Kip was trying to get things going. And it seamed to work. This team has hit terribly and Kip tried a different approach.

He couldn't know Cabrerra was going to hit a double.

Right, Cabrera doubled because Kipnis successfully sacrificed. Because Kipnis "got things going". It wasn't Bourn's bunt single or Swisher's walk that got things going. It was the first out of the inning.

Bunting in the first inning is stupid. Giving up outs is generally stupid.

A bunt in that situation lowered your expected runs for that inning. Luckily, Cabrera doubled, because your best hitter didn't even give himself the chance to hit.

If the stats really suggest that he lowers our expected runs by moving the runners over, then fine you're correct. I'd like to see those numbers though.

And before you try to explain to me how small the difference is between 1st & 2nd, 0 out and 2nd & 3rd, 1 out, don't forget to consider that we don't know what Kipnis would have done had he swung away.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

I don't know if it's just me but it seems like Bourn doesn't seem to drive the ball, and I don't mean home runs, like his swing is flat or something, his hits just seem to be ground ball singles or bloops, maybe I'm just watching when this happens, just doesn't seem to have that gap power, so the slam was a nice surprise for sure.

Kazmir is taking himself right out of the Indians price range. His last seven starts have been outstanding. Granted, the M's suck, but come on, one hit in eight innings! Wow.

Nice to see some runs for a change.

As for the first inning sacrifice, you have to consider that the Tribe has lost four low-scoring, one-run games out of five. They've really been struggling to score. With the way Kazmir has been pitching lately, and with Saunders having an ERA of something like 1.75 in his last four starts, it was shaping up to be another 2-1 game. So having Kipnis move the runners to 2nd and 3rd with one out and two right-handers coming up made sense to me, whether Droobs and Santana came through or not.

As much as I love to see a Tribe grand slam, it's a shame it was wasted. Even if Bourn strikes out the Tribe still wins by at least 4-1.

I hate to see infielders slinging their throws sidearm. Two more wild throws today on sidearm throws when there was plenty of time to bring the arm up and throw normally. I hope Francona corrects that problem on his "back to basics" day.

Mark Reynolds with base hits in back-to-back games. I'm still in shock.

Prosecutor wrote:Kazmir is taking himself right out of the Indians price range. His last seven starts have been outstanding. Granted, the M's suck, but come on, one hit in eight innings! Wow.

That sucky team just took 2 of 3 from us and had a 8 game winning streak. Suck is in the eye of the beholder in baseball...

Kazmir was always going to be a one year rental type player. Either he bombed and got cut or did well and moved on. With his substantial injury history, no team is going to sign him to a multi-year deal. 2 years maybe, but he isn't going to get a 4 year deal.

Depending on how good he feels about the organization that gave him a chance to rebuild his value, he might be willing to give the Tribe first shot at an extension. If he doesn't, you can't blame him. Could be his last shot at getting big money.

It was one of those situations where he put it near the 3rd base line and tried to beat it out, knowing that if not at least he moved the runners.

Pipe is correct in that the Tribe's offense has been shit lately. Which is why it's not a bad idea to sacrifice and play for 1 or 2 runs rather than the big inning. Especially if you're up against a pitcher who's on a roll lately and your team hasn't been hitting, so a big inning is unlikely. And if your own pitcher has also been on a roll then you're looking at a good chance of a 2-1 or 1-0 game, in which case one run has much more value than in a high-scoring game.

Also, Kipnis may not have felt confident against Saunders, although he's been hitting lefties well. I don't know Kipnis' lifetime batting average against Saunders, but he didn't do anything against him in his next at-bat, so maybe Jason just decided to move the runners and maybe get a hit out of it if he could place the bunt perfectly.

As for the sacrifice having a negative value statistically, so does an onside kick in football. But sometimes it's the right thing to do.

I don't like it but, it's probably a combination of how well Kip feels he's swinging the bat (not too well in the series as a whole - granted just 3 games) and a belief that after some of the things he's said lately he need's to back them up by manufacturing runs (the whole "no excuses" speach).

I don't agree with his decision to bunt, but I think it was his decision based on those factors - it's just those factors don't have any real merit, outside of out-dated player opinions, if you ask me.

From Adam's article:"ball could be pulled through the hole for a RBI single, or, at worst, runners on the corners without wasting an out. Hell, every right handed hitter should be able to inside-out a ball to the right side to advance the runner or even get a base hit."

Agree- kind of a pet peeve of mine. Even a pitcher should be able to hit a pitch to the right side, no? At least, learn how. And any hitter trying to do this and getting messed with by a pitcher who is not throwing strikes should be able to work the count. When runners are on base, pressure is on the pitcher. If they like the windup, they are even throwing differently. Why let them off the hook.

Question: Even early in the game, I have always assumed that playing for one run can be effective *if* tying the score or pulling ahead by one. Kind of a psychological thing. Adam/Lead/or anyone, any thoughts on that?

googleeph2 wrote:Question: Even early in the game, I have always assumed that playing for one run can be effective *if* tying the score or pulling ahead by one. Kind of a psychological thing. Adam/Lead/or anyone, any thoughts on that?

As a general rule, I would never bunt early in the game. How often is that one run going to matter? It certainly won't have as much impact as two, three, or four runs and I definitely wouldn't do it to simply tie the game. Bunting has a place in the game as a late-inning move when trailing or tied, as an element of surprise, and occasionally against a shift if you can keep it fair.

Bunting is largely playing for one run. There aren't many times you want to play for a lone run in the early innings.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

googleeph2 wrote:From Adam's article:"ball could be pulled through the hole for a RBI single, or, at worst, runners on the corners without wasting an out. Hell, every right handed hitter should be able to inside-out a ball to the right side to advance the runner or even get a base hit."

Agree- kind of a pet peeve of mine. Even a pitcher should be able to hit a pitch to the right side, no? At least, learn how. And any hitter trying to do this and getting messed with by a pitcher who is not throwing strikes should be able to work the count. When runners are on base, pressure is on the pitcher. If they like the windup, they are even throwing differently. Why let them off the hook.

Question: Even early in the game, I have always assumed that playing for one run can be effective *if* tying the score or pulling ahead by one. Kind of a psychological thing. Adam/Lead/or anyone, any thoughts on that?

My thought is that if your 2nd hitter can't hit the ball to the right side (in addition to being a good hitter), than he shoudn't be batting second.

And if you are hitting third, you are there to H-I-T. Giving a team one of your 27 outs in the first inning, and giving them an out FROM YOUR BEST HITTER is not going to be benficial in the long run - to put it nicely.

Always used to love when they'd bunt Crisp or Vizquel in the first inning, out of the 2 hole, with like Jeremy Soewer on the hill, as if one or two runs would be all they needed.

Lastly, if you are playing a team that is psychologically fractured, down 1-0 in the first, man, are you playing a really shitty team.

Kipnis grounded out to first in his other at-bat against Saunders. I just don't think he felt comfortable swinging the bat against a lefty who throws a lot of off-speed pitches, and with the Indians having lost four of their last five by one run in low-scoring games, I think Kipnis wanted to make sure he at least moved the runners and had a productive at-bat.

But in general, it doesn't make sense for your #3 hitter to bunt with two on and nobody out in the first inning. I think this was a special circumstance based on the Indians' recent history and who was pitching for both teams.